AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[nixcity]

That CACDC "plan" would cost ~2 Billion. At least. It's longer than the 2014 plan (which adds costs) and would be built later.

Even if the full length of their idea for Phase 1 it would not cost more than 3 times the 2014 plan as you suggest. I personally think Phase 1 should be shorter.
[QUOTE But if you want to link employment with residential, running up Guadalupe isn't any better (and in some ways is worse) than than the 2014 plan. ][/QUOTE]
Please, please, please show me the employment numbers that reflect that, even with full buildout of the med school.
Unfortunately I can't post the image of the image that has more than 178,000 jobs within a half mile of the stops for the northern portion of the route using 2011 census numbers. Surely you don't believe the 2014 alignment had that many, and if they did, Project Connect would have been screaming it out on those horrible commercials and flyers they made.

then the residential density of west campus is basically meaningless. It's not a density that is effectively served by a N/S rail line.

Yeah, tell that to the busiest bus routes in town, still, even after they cut service to pay for the people that ride the red line. And not just through the drag, I see almost full "BRT" buses at Kramer and Lamar at 6:45 in the morning.

Nope, it's not being presented to the city council.

Who said it was being presented????? Why do you think Adler has just recently come out speaking about rail?? This coming just a little more than a year after city officials told us that buses would be the future of the city. Both Adler and Casar are fully aware of this plan and I'm sure a few others are as well. They all will be when they get the proclamation from the UTC.

All that's happening is that the UTC recommended that the council look at some sort of transit.
Might not even be rail. Might just be more transit priority lanes (which would be a good thing.

They're not recommending that route.

None of what you said disproves what I said.

[nixcity]

Dallas density = 3518
Portland density = 4375
Austin density = 2653
NYC density = 27,012

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._by_population

That's a better list than the one I posted. My point was to be that you don't need a density of more than 8,000 as you said Portland has to have successful rail. Even Dallas has done a pretty good job of making it work. Austin has far more density than any Dallas neighborhoods with West Campus and I'd bet our DT as well.

I don't assume they won't vote for rail. I know that they won't because, twice, they didn't vote for rail. I don't think it is a stretch to assume that the burbs voted "no" in greater numbers than did the urban core.

Sure, but with a good enough plan than those voting "for" in the city will outnumber those. That is what almost (by the narrowest of margins) happened with the 2000 vote.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Dcbrickley

Dallas density = 3518
Portland density = 4375
Austin density = 2653
NYC density = 27,012

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._by_population


Your Huffpo article shows NYC as less dense than LA? Really? This argument is about cities, not giant urban areas:

"The New York urban area covers..... 50 miles west to Hackettstown, New Jersey, 90 miles east to Sag Harbor Long Island, 55 miles north to Dutchess County, New York, and 80 miles south to Ocean County, New Jersey. The New York urban area is geographically bigger than Delaware and Rhode Island combined"

I don't assume they won't vote for rail. I know that they won't because, twice, they didn't vote for rail. I don't think it is a stretch to assume that the burbs voted "no" in greater numbers than did the urban core.

Not a single bit of what you just said is relevant.

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Not a single bit of what you just said is relevant.

I beg your pardon?

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by nixcity

That's a better list than the one I posted. My point was to be that you don't need a density of more than 8,000 as you said Portland has to have successful rail. Even Dallas has done a pretty good job of making it work. Austin has far more density than any Dallas neighborhoods with West Campus and I'd bet our DT as well.


Sure, but with a good enough plan than those voting "for" in the city will outnumber those. That is what almost (by the narrowest of margins) happened with the 2000 vote.

The 2000 vote was a LONG time ago...and the areas that have grown faster than the urban core, are the burbs. Suburban voters will crush an expensive urban core rail that won't serve them, and stick them with another bond to pay for each month. The last rail bond alone would have cost me $40/mo in increased taxes. Unless they can reduce the cost (they probably can't), or find an additional way to fund it (they probably won't), it will NEVER pass a bond election.....ever!

[wwmiv]

It isn't relevant because the types of communities you're talking about will have no voting say whatsoever on any Austin urban rail proposal like ever.

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

It isn't relevant because the types of communities you're talking about will have no voting say whatsoever on any Austin urban rail proposal like ever.

What types of communities am I talking about?

I am talking about Austin suburbs will not support rail that will not help them. In addition i am pointing out that cities with denser urban populations DO have enough people to warrant the cost of rail whether through voting or bitching. You need DENSITY or rail is useless.

All of this is a moot point because with autonomous cars on the horizon, and a new generation of young people who don't care about car ownership will usher in point to point transportation which will revolutionize how we commute.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...12064104,d.eWE


http://sustainablemobility.ei.columb...n-27-20132.pdf


How you like me now?

[lzppjb]

The core would have to be a landslide For next time to overcome the outskirts of town if the plan isn't attractive enough.

2014

[electricron]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

The core would have to be a landslide For next time to overcome the outskirts of town if the plan isn't attractive enough.

2014

Why is it a surprise to see voters where the proposed urban rail line is planned to go support, while those where it isn't planned to go against? What impresses me is finding precincts 301, 356, and 364 which are far removed from the urban rail line for, while precincts 325, 341, and 420 (?), in the very heart of the CBD near the urban rail line against.

Austin needs to come up with a regional plan that serves far more of the population. I suggest commuter rail to the outskirts of the city parallel to congested corridors AND urban rail near the urban core if it ever wants to see a future referendum pass the electorate. Generally promise something to everyone, whatever that something needs to be.

Houston and Dallas transit organizations have proposed projects throughout the city, although they are limited to building one project at a time and must prioritize them. Never-the-less, the promise of something better for everyone , although it may take decades to achieve, is out there for the electorate to consider.

I suggest as long as the City, Lone Star Rail, and CapMetro pull in opposite directions no new referendum will pass.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Dcbrickley

What types of communities am I talking about?

I am talking about Austin suburbs will not support rail that will not help them. In addition i am pointing out that cities with denser urban populations DO have enough people to warrant the cost of rail whether through voting or bitching. You need DENSITY or rail is useless.

All of this is a moot point because with autonomous cars on the horizon, and a new generation of young people who don't care about car ownership will usher in point to point transportation which will revolutionize how we commute.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...12064104,d.eWE


http://sustainablemobility.ei.columb...n-27-20132.pdf


How you like me now?

But Austin proper suburban developments are mostly NOT the types of places you are describing. The types of places you're talking about are Round Rocks and Pflugervilles and actual suburban communities. Yes, Austin has some of those (the 183 corridor, for instance) but MUCH of Austin proper's population even in it suburban area's is amenable to rail in the abstract. The problem is finding the right alignment, which is just part of the politics of this issue.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

The problem is finding the right alignment, which is just part of the politics of this issue.

Alignment wouldn't be as much of a problem if you promised "something" to more of the city than just one alignment in the urban core.
The more you promise to more people, the less local neighborhood politics problems you will have.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by electricron

The more you promise to more people, the less local neighborhood politics problems you will have.

This is another way of saying "alignment matters". If you create a rail line that helps the most possible people, it stands the most possible chance at winning. You /have/ to make it attractive to everyone.

[nixcity]

I feel like more people north of where the vote dropped off in both the 2000 and 2014 will like the new alignment. Hitting that park and ride transit center on Lamar and also connecting to the red line at Crestview are both viable ways for people to get directly to the core from longer distances.

All of this is a moot point because with autonomous cars on the horizon, and a new generation of young people who don't care about car ownership will usher in point to point transportation which will revolutionize how we commute.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...12064104,d.eWE


http://sustainablemobility.ei.columb...n-27-20132.pdf

I like how on the first link there is a picture at the very top of two people sitting on a.......you got it, a train. Not once in the second link does it mention when these concepts could be installed on a wide scale. It does however mention that Manhattan would continue to rely on subways if this were in place there.

[nixcity]

The new rail plan also goes further south than the last capturing a rather large percentage of potential riders/voters. Although I don't personally feel that should be a part of the first phase.

Austin needs to come up with a regional plan that serves far more of the population. I suggest commuter rail to the outskirts of the city parallel to congested corridors AND urban rail near the urban core if it ever wants to see a future referendum pass the electorate.

That's basically what the new plan does, when combined with the already existing (and expanding) red line, Lonestar, and possibly the green line that CapMetro has talked about for a long time.

[Tech House]

Originally Posted by nixcity

I feel like more people north of where the vote dropped off in both the 2000 and 2014 will like the new alignment. Hitting that park and ride transit center on Lamar and also connecting to the red line at Crestview are both viable ways for people to get directly to the core from longer distances.

I agree, and I like the way you worded your statement: "I feel like more people... will like the new alignment." That's why it will be supported. If I am completely honest with myself about why I voted against Prop 1, it's because it didn't feel right. In retrospect, maybe I'd vote for it, but it was bundled with highway funds and the whole thing was presented so badly and explained so poorly that I had no confidence that anyone knew what they were doing.

Approximately 0.01% of the voting public is going to study the issue to the depths that it's being explored in this thread. If you have a hundred pages of analysis proving you've got a good idea, but you can't present it in a way that feels right to voters, then why would you expect people to vote for their budgets to be further squeezed in order to make your intuitively inaccessible plan come to fruition? [By "you" I'm obviously referring to "whoever is in a position to present a transportation initiative to the public"]

[Jdawgboy]

I'd support a plan with a good balance including rail as long as the transportation plan serves south of the river just as well as it serves north. That doesn't mean that they have to spend more or anything like that. They just need to make sure that there is easy access for everyone who lives within the city limits south of the river.

There is a reason why we feel ripped off by Cap metro and how it serves the southside. I do not see any reason why they can't put as much effort in quality service and access as they do north.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

Even if the full length of their idea for Phase 1 it would not cost more than 3 times the 2014 plan as you suggest.

The 2014 plan was 1.4 Billion. Three times that would be 4.2 Billion. I didn't claim that.

Math!

But the 2014 plan was 1.4 Billion for ~10 miles. Not everything scales linearly, but as a first order approximation, your proposal is at least 50% longer, which brings it up to ~2 Billion.

Then it would be several years later, so YOE dollars would be a bit more.

Originally Posted by nixcity

I personally think Phase 1 should be shorter.

Which shows the _big_ problem with the CACDC's proposal. They want to define the system as going all the way from PV to Rundberg (based on nothing more than connect the dots), pass $100 Million dollars in bonds IMMEDIATELY. THEN start planning/designing.

That's exactly bass-ackwards. You plan first, figure out where you really need to put the system, then pass the bonds.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

Please, please, please show me the employment numbers that reflect that, even with full buildout of the med school.
Unfortunately I can't post the image of the image that has more than 178,000 jobs within a half mile of the stops for the northern portion of the route using 2011 census numbers.

Look at your own freaking map.

http://centralaustincdc.org/transpor...light_rail.htm


The dark purple cluster is East of guadalupe.

West of Guadalupe it's a light purple. And presumably many/most of those jobs are commercial/restaurant jobs filled by local students.

and no, it's not 178k jobs in the northern portion. It's 171k jobs for the _entire_ route.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

Yeah, tell that to the busiest bus routes in town, still, even after they cut service to pay for the people that ride the red line.

Quit it with this nonsense.

1) The 1 corridor saw a large _increase_ of service with the introduction of the metrorapid.

2) It doesn't pay for the red line. Rather the reverse, the (existence of) the rail subsidizes bus service.

Every year, CapMetro takes in ~$50M for the quarter cent sales tax originally intended for rail service. Spends a fraction of it on the red line, then uses the rest for the bus service in the general budget.

Originally Posted by nixcity

And not just through the drag, I see almost full "BRT" buses at Kramer and Lamar at 6:45 in the morning.

Which is a big problem with your proposal. If the buses are almost full at Kramer and Lamar, then people are boarding even further north. Presumably a lot at the Tech Ridge Park and Ride.

So you're proposing people drive the park and ride, park, wait for a bus, ride it 4 miles to Lamar and Rundberg, get off, wait for the train, board, and then ride it to their final destination?

Originally Posted by nixcity

Who said it was being presented?????

YOU DID

Originally Posted by nixcity

Here is what is being presented to the actual city council,

Originally Posted by nixcity

Why do you think Adler has just recently come out speaking about rail??

Sure, rail. A small "demonstration" system. Not a multi-billion $ system (unfortunately).

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

but MUCH of Austin proper's population even in it suburban area's is amenable to rail in the abstract. The problem is finding the right alignment, which is just part of the politics of this issue.

I absolutely feel (or at least hope) that a system can be presented to the electorate and pass.

But it will be a _lot_ of work, and require a lot of voter education.

Those recent poll numbers don't do a lot to fill me with confidence.


So 66% of Austin supports "rail" in the abstract.

1) But the question is so open-ended, the definition of "rail" is completely subjective. For some people, that may mean they support a commuter rail (only). For some, that may mean they support an urban light rail (only). For some, it may mean just a downtown streetcar.

2) Again, as the proposal moves from the abstract to the concrete, the route gets nailed down. It can't and won't serve everyone, so _some_ support will inevitably drop as people discover they're not in the first few stages of service, or will never receive service.

3) And as it becomes nailed down, the price increases. People may support cheap rail in the abstract, and drop support for a system in the $Billions.

If you try and offer more of 1) to more people, or more of 2), then the price drastically increases, and you lose support via 3). It's going to be a tough balancing act.

And then, with that latest poll, it was corrected for Austin's demographics as a whole. Not the demographics of the expected voters.
Support drops a bit for those >35 years old, and pretty significantly for those who have been in Austin the longest. And the turnout for a bond election will tend to have over-representation from those groups.


A lot of voter education is necessary, and you need to convince people that they're better off with a rail system, even one that doesn't serve them directly.